can't resist this one film

Originally Posted by LJSLATER

I can't resist shooting slide film. My two favorites are Velvia 50 and Ektachrome 100VS (I've got about 15 rolls left). For years I've been kicking myself for shooting chromes because I don't have a single print from any of them.

I recently made my first attempt at creating internegs from some of my favorite slides using Portra 160. Making the internegs took around six hours total for 76 frames, and when I got the film back, I was saddened to find that not a single one was useable! It's enough to drive a man to drink.

I'm tempted to switch to C-41 or digital for color, or maybe go fully black & white for a while. But damn if I don't just love looking at my slides on my crappy lightbox with my crappy 15x loupe.

I thought you could still print chromes? You just needed a special setup?

And, I assume you wouldn't consider this, but have a scan made and had that printed? Or do that fancy thing where you have a chrome scanned, then have it projected onto negatives? I'm not familiar with the process so much as I've seen others talk about it.

Personally I have found scans of provia chromes to show virtually no grain, way less than B&W, I can't speak for ektachrome as the only ektachrome I've scanned was EPP and improperly exposed/developed (I used old developer knowing it might be bad, and it was).

I know that's taboo here but I'm just offering a possible way for you to get some nice prints from your chromes.

On the other side of things, I've never projected any of my chromes. I don't own projector...

I do know I've seen or read they do have 6x6 projectors... So look for one of those?

Good luck!

PS the Kodak Ektar 100 is very saturated and you might like it as a substitution for chromes.

can't resist this one film

Originally Posted by PKM-25

I have had good luck in Rodinal at high dilution but I think TD3 is the go to soup for TP now that Technidol is gone. I have 150 rolls in 35mm and 160 rolls in 120 in the freezer with enough Technidol for all but about 30 rolls of it, TD3 for the rest.

I bought a 105mm Rodagon-G just to enlarge the 120 version of that, APX25, Efke R25 and Tmax100 to be shot in 6x6 and 6x12 format...:-)

Showoff! I have a measly 7 135 rolls and 2 120 haha

As I understand it Tech Pan isn't all black, it had some blue and possibly magenta tones when that was a heavy element in the image, so THAT'S what I'm interested in more than the fine grained nature, the slight color tone, but I don't think you can get that from anything except Technidol but I don't know that for sure. I also don't know if the slight colors are even discernible or merely faint and really it wouldn't matter?

The only ways to print chromes in the darkroom now are 1) via internegatives, or 2) via reversal processing of RA4 paper. That's possible but has some pretty significant limitations. There are threads on here if you care to search.

I'm planning to get set up to scan mine and print hybrid, not because I want to, but because it's much more practical than internegatives.

can't resist this one film

Originally Posted by Roger Cole

The only ways to print chromes in the darkroom now are 1) via internegatives, or 2) via reversal processing of RA4 paper. That's possible but has some pretty significant limitations. There are threads on here if you care to search.

I'm planning to get set up to scan mine and print hybrid, not because I want to, but because it's much more practical than internegatives.

Well how did they print them back in the day?

Like, national geographic was filed with images that were chromes, so how did they do it?

1) So called "R" prints - not so great results - materials no longer available;
2) Cibachrome/Ilfochrome - very high quality, but the high contrast can be a real challenge, and the saturated colours are not ideal for everything - Ilford Switzerland just discontinued the materials, although some is still around - quite expensive;
3) Conversion to the materials that printers use for newspapers/magazines/posters - for colour some sort of separation process is needed, with inherent potential loss of quality, is only economic if done in quantity.

Although National Geographic is/was a well produced magazine, that uses a good quality photogravure process, the quality of a photograph printed in it's pages doesn't approach the potential quality of a good photographic print.

Matt

“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

I printed a ton of R prints back in the day, and found the results really good, comparable to Ilfo/Cibachrome or RA4 of the day, at least if the original wasn't too contrasty. I printed some of what was then called Cibachrome too and found the results quite comparable. The Cibachrome had somewhat higher contrast (usually a drawback) and a bit more saturation (sometimes good, sometimes bad.) The glossy Ciba/Ilfochrome was very glossy, and very expensive, so I mostly confined myself to the RC Pearl surface. I eventually switched over to it from Type R when the price became more closely comparable and I had a bit more money, but more for the simpler processing and near-room-temperature (amendable to being used at room temperature) processing than for any superiority of results.

Where it WAS superior was the fade resistance of the dyes, at least in dark storage. It could fade badly if exposed to UV (sunglight in a window for example) and there were concerns about the base on the RC material though I still have a few of those printed in the 90s that are in good shape.

Bottom line was that I think Type R actually worked very well, it's just no longer available.

can't resist this one film

Originally Posted by Roger Cole

I printed a ton of R prints back in the day, and found the results really good, comparable to Ilfo/Cibachrome or RA4 of the day, at least if the original wasn't too contrasty. I printed some of what was then called Cibachrome too and found the results quite comparable. The Cibachrome had somewhat higher contrast (usually a drawback) and a bit more saturation (sometimes good, sometimes bad.) The glossy Ciba/Ilfochrome was very glossy, and very expensive, so I mostly confined myself to the RC Pearl surface. I eventually switched over to it from Type R when the price became more closely comparable and I had a bit more money, but more for the simpler processing and near-room-temperature (amendable to being used at room temperature) processing than for any superiority of results.

Where it WAS superior was the fade resistance of the dyes, at least in dark storage. It could fade badly if exposed to UV (sunglight in a window for example) and there were concerns about the base on the RC material though I still have a few of those printed in the 90s that are in good shape.

Bottom line was that I think Type R actually worked very well, it's just no longer available.

I'd love a scanner but I don't have one; for a time I was saving for a Nikon CoolScan, but they're gone now. The Epson 700/750 looks interesting, but I've heard comments ranging from "it's the worst piece of crap ever" to "it's the best scanner of all time". I've had commercial scans of my slides made from a few different shops but the results have never met my standards.

One of my pipe dreams for a while was having dye transfer prints made; I almost cried when I read that Ctein was going to stop doing them.

I have some Ektar in the fridge but I've yet to even try it. I guess for me C-41 film has a stigma associated with it, as I came up in photography being told that color negatives were merely a cheaper, amateur atlernative to E6. Of course I now know that that's not true and that negatives are superior in several ways. But my God the orange base is ugly!

can't resist this one film

Originally Posted by LJSLATER

Stone,

I'd love a scanner but I don't have one; for a time I was saving for a Nikon CoolScan, but they're gone now. The Epson 700/750 looks interesting, but I've heard comments ranging from "it's the worst piece of crap ever" to "it's the best scanner of all time". I've had commercial scans of my slides made from a few different shops but the results have never met my standards.

One of my pipe dreams for a while was having dye transfer prints made; I almost cried when I read that Ctein was going to stop doing them.

I have some Ektar in the fridge but I've yet to even try it. I guess for me C-41 film has a stigma associated with it, as I came up in photography being told that color negatives were merely a cheaper, amateur atlernative to E6. Of course I now know that that's not true and that negatives are superior in several ways. But my God the orange base is ugly!

Haha I agree I dislike the orange base, and I'm terrible at analyzing a negative color image.

The epson v750 is really nice but the holders suck, you have to buy the betterscanning variable height adapters and ANR glass. I've learned this the hard way and now have to re-scan because I was trying to be cheap

But of all the scans the Provia is the best, no grain and spectacular color. I just have trouble with the "advanced" silverfast software, the basic epson scan software is really easy.